Paralleling CTs for Line Current Differential

Applications: Problems and Solutions

David Costello, Jason Young, and Jonas Traphoner

Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc.

2015 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained
for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material
for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or
redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other
works.
This paper was presented at the 68th Annual Conference for Protective Relay Engineers and can
be accessed at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CPRE.2015.7102166.
For the complete history of this paper, refer to the next page.

Presented at the
51st Annual Minnesota Power Systems Conference
Saint Paul, Minnesota
November 1012, 2015
Previously presented at the
2nd Annual PAC World Americas Conference, September 2015,
and 69th Annual Georgia Tech Protective Relaying Conference, April 2015
Originally presented at the
68th Annual Conference for Protective Relay Engineers, March 2015

Paralleling CTs for Line Current Differential

Applications: Problems and Solutions
David Costello, Jason Young, and Jonas Traphoner, Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc.
AbstractParalleling current transformers (CTs) is a
common practice in differential or line protection applications
where the number of CTs exceeds the number of relay current
inputs. This is especially true of line current differential
applications applied to breaker-and-a-half and ring-bus
configurations. This paper discusses complications that can arise
from this practice and highlights relay design improvements that
have been made to add security to these applications. Real-world
event reports are shown to illustrate problems and solutions.

I. INTRODUCTION
There are many principles that protection engineers must
learn. For example, one principle is that paralleled current
transformers (CTs) should be avoided as differential (87)
inputs because a relay is less secure during external faults with
heavy CT saturation. Another is that tapping a multiratio CT
at less than its full winding derates the CT and makes it more
likely to saturate.
It was Douglas MacArthur who said, Rules are mostly
made to be broken [1]. While protection engineers are
rarely known for their cavalier attitudes, engineers are tasked
with solving problems and have to make compromises for a
number of reasons. For example, CTs were paralleled to line
current differential relays for decades because the line
terminals to be protected were breaker-and-a-half
arrangements and each relay available and installed at the time
only had a single three-phase current input available. While
not ideal for restraint during external faults, paralleled CTs
have been used successfully for these dual-breaker
applications, and to remove transformers and bus sections
from differential zones. Also, CTs are sometimes tapped down
in order to meter low load currents or to match the ratio of a
paralleled CT. While not ideal for performance during faults,
dual-slope and Alpha Plane differential characteristics, as well
as adaptive overcurrent elements, external fault detectors, and
more, are tolerant of varying levels of CT saturation.
In this paper, two case studies are presented. In both, a
fault occurred and an adjacent unfaulted line section
misoperated. The subsequent root cause analysis revisits the
two fundamental protection principles mentioned previously
and their importance. We share the lessons learned and offer
some practical advice for improving security.
II. CT CONNECTIONS
The method of wiring CTs that is chosen for a given
application is typically driven by the system configuration and
protective relay design. For example, to protect a delta-wye
transformer with an electromechanical 87 relay, the CTs on

the delta winding must be connected in wye, while the CTs on

the wye winding must be connected in delta in order to
compensate for the phase angle shift and zero-sequence
current introduced by the transformer. On the other hand, both
CTs can be connected in wye when a digital 87 relay with
internal mathematical compensation is used.
We must decide if a CT can supply multiple relays or if
separate, designated CTs are required for each relay. One such
case of particular importance is bus 87 protection. A lowimpedance bus 87 relay can share CTs with other devices,
while a high-impedance bus 87 relay requires dedicated CTs.
In transmission line applications, it is common to see CTs
paralleled together for line relays, regardless of whether the
application is using distance or line current 87 elements. This
practice is driven primarily by typical bus configurations used
at transmission voltage levels (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

A Typical High-Voltage Breaker-and-a-Half Bus Configuration

In a breaker-and-a-half bus configuration, each line is fed

by two breakers. The transmission line relay must measure the
total line current. For decades, it was standard practice for
electromechanical and early digital relay designs to only have
a single set of three-phase current inputs. As a result, CT
inputs from separate breakers had to be paralleled before
being connected to the relay when the number of CTs
exceeded the number of relay inputs.
Although paralleling CTs to line relays has been quite
common over the years, it does have some shortcomings that
can significantly challenge the security of distance,
directional, and differential line protection relays [2].

Therefore, modern digital relays provide additional CT inputs,

allowing the individual CTs to be connected separately to the
relay.

CTs do not saturate immediately. A CT reproduces the

primary current for a certain time after each current zero
crossing. The time to saturate is given by (2).

III. CT SATURATION
The source of difference current between two paralleled
CTs for an external fault is CT saturation and the varying
performance of the two CTs. A simplified equivalent circuit
for two paralleled CTs during an external fault is shown in
Fig. 2. Assume that there is a source behind CT A and that the
fault is located behind or external to CT B. The coil in the
center of Fig. 2 is a current sensor.
RL

RCT

RL

RCT

CT A
IF

Fig. 2.

CT B
XM

I1

I2

XM

IF

Equivalent Circuit for Two Paralleled CTs During an External Fault

The CT secondary current (IF) is the ratio current, or the

primary fault current divided by the CT ratio. XM is the
nonlinear excitation branch of the CT, RL is the lead resistance
from the CT to the summation point, and RCT is the CT
winding resistance. I1 and I2 are the circulating currents.
Ideally, the leakage or error current in the excitation branches
is minimal, and I1 and I2 are identical to one another and
nearly identical to IF. The current sensor should measure
0 amperes. Equation (1) shows the criteria for selecting CTs to
avoid saturation [3] [4].

X
I F ZB + 1 kVSTD
R

(1)

where:
ZB is the CT burden.
k is a dimensioning factor of 7.5 for line 87 applications.
VSTD is the secondary terminal voltage rating.
IF is the fault current referred to in secondary amperes.
X/R is the system reactance-to-resistance ratio.
If the whole winding of a CT is not used, the standard
burden is multiplied by the tapped ratio divided by the full
ratio. In other words, tapping a CT at less than its full winding
derates the CT and lessens its performance.
Despite our best efforts, CT saturation is not always
avoidable. Even if CT A and CT B are the same make and
model, they may not perform identically during fault
conditions. As CT A saturates, its excitation branch current
increases dramatically, and I1 is no longer an accurate replica
of IF. The difference between I1 and IF is the CT error, which
includes a difference in the current magnitude and phase
angle.

TSAT

VSAT

X
I ( R + R ) 1
B

= R ln l F S
X

(2)

where:
is the angular frequency.
VSAT is the saturation voltage.
IF is the fault current referred to in secondary amperes.
RS is CT winding resistance.
RB is the burden resistance.
Keep in mind that the connection of CTs and the fault type
determine the multiplying factors for lead and relay
impedances in the burden calculation [5].
Lastly, CTs may succumb to ac or dc saturation. The volttime area under the burden voltage waveform signifies the
threshold of saturation. The volt-time area may be increased
due to large ac fault currents (ac or symmetrical saturation) or
a large dc offset (dc or asymmetrical saturation). Equation (3)
indicates that fault current has a sinusoidal part (ac
component) and an exponentially decaying part (dc
component). The fault current magnitude, phase angle, and
time constant depend on the power system parameters. The
magnitude of the dc offset is determined by the angle of the
voltage at fault inception.

=
i(t)

VM
V
Rt
sin ( t + ) M sin ( ) e L
Z
Z

(3)

where:
Z is the system impedance and
=
Z

2
R 2 + X=

R 2 + ( L ) .
2

L
is the system impedance angle and =arctan
.
R
X or L is the system reactance.
R is the system resistance.
is the angular frequency.
VM is the peak system voltage.
is the angle of the voltage at fault inception.
It is interesting to note the influence of various factors in
(3). A higher X/R ratio (higher source impedance) reduces
fault current magnitude but increases the time constant or time
required to eliminate the dc offset component. In high
inductive reactance systems, = 90 degrees produces the
maximum dc offset. In other words, the dc offset is at a
maximum when a fault occurs at a voltage minimum or zero
crossing. Insulation breakdown line-to-ground (LG) faults are

most likely to occur at a voltage maximum, resulting in little

to no dc offset in the fault current. However, in multiphase
faults, all voltages cannot be simultaneously zero, so dc offset
is inevitable in one or more phases. Fig. 3 shows a plot of the
fault current components in (3).
30

Resultant Current i(t)

Current (kA)

20

IOP

Transient Term

10

Operating
Region

K1
Restraining
Region

K0

IOP = KIRT

Steady State

30
0

Cycles

Plot of Fault Current Components

IV. LINE CURRENT DIFFERENTIAL RELAYS

A. General Concepts
Differential protection is straightforward in principle.
Gustav Kirchhoffs first law states that the sum of currents
into and out of any node is zero. We implement this principle
with differential relays to protect transmission lines, bus
sections, power transformers, and generators.
Of course, an 87 relay does not measure primary currents.
Compensation may be required for CT-induced and power
system element-induced magnitude and phase angle
differences. In transmission line or IEC 61850-9-2 process bus
applications, the simple 87 principle is further complicated by
distributed digital signal processing, communications, and
alignment. A generic 87 relay, along with these complicating
functions, is shown in Fig. 4.
L

Fig. 5.

87 Relay
IR

IL
IOP

Traditional Slope-Based Differential Characteristic

C. Improved Slope-Based Differential Characteristic

Improved slope-based differential relays have an adaptive
characteristic. For internal faults, these relays use a lower,
more sensitive slope, K1. For external faults, these relays shift
to a higher, more secure slope, K2. See Fig. 6.
IOP
Operating
Region

K2

K1

Restraining
Region

K0

IRT

Fig. 6.
Magnitude
and Angle
Compensation

Magnitude
and Angle
Compensation

IRT

Restraint current, IRT, is calculated as the sum of the

magnitudes of IL and IR. In some designs, the sum of
magnitudes is further multiplied by a constant. In any case,
restraint is a measure of current magnitude in the CTs. As
current increases, IRT increases, and the operate current
required to trip goes up according to a slope constant, K. K0 is
the relay minimum sensitivity.

R
Power System
Element

Data
Communications
and Time
Alignment

Improved Slope-Based Differential Adaptive Characteristic

Waiting for CT saturation to occur, detecting it, and then

finally shifting to a more secure state is not reliable.
Therefore, adaptive relays detect the fault situation (an
external fault) that presents a security risk if the CTs were to
saturate severely. The decision to shift to K2 is made by an
external fault detector (see Fig. 7) before the CT saturates.
IOPR

Fig. 4.

K2

10
20

Fig. 3.

B. Traditional Slope-Based Differential Characteristic

For external faults where significant CT saturation can
occur, an error signal presents itself as false difference current,
IOP. The traditional slope-based differential characteristic (see
Fig. 5) adds security by adjusting sensitivity based on restraint
current.

DIOPP

Functional Current Differential Relay Diagram

For normal power flow or for external faults, we expect

that the current IL is nearly equal in magnitude and opposite in
phase angle from IR after compensation, data communications,
and time alignment. The difference current, IOP, is the phasor
sum of IL and IR. IOP should be nearly zero under these ideal
conditions.

DIOPR

IRTR

DIRTR
DIRTP

Fig. 7.

DIOP

DIRT

External Fault Detector for Adaptive Characteristic Relays

Raw samples are used to develop raw IOP and raw IRT
values. If there is a difference in the raw IOP and raw IRT values

greater than thresholds DIOPP and DIRTP, respectively, from

one cycle before, then fast change detectors DIOP and DIRT
assert. Even with severe CT saturation, we expect CTs to
produce some valid output for at least 2 milliseconds. For
external faults, the raw IOP does not change and the raw IRT
changes in the first instant of the fault data. The output of the
logical AND gate indicates an external fault and drives the
adaptive characteristic to the more secure K2 before the CT
saturates.
D. Alpha Plane Differential Characteristic
Alpha Plane characteristic relays plot the ratio of remote
and local current on a two-dimensional plane. The restraining
region of the Alpha Plane is defined by a radius and angle (see
Fig. 8). For an external power flow or fault condition, IL and
IR ideally should be equal and opposite in phase angle. On the
Alpha Plane, the current ratio for this condition would plot at
a magnitude of 1 per unit and an angle of 180 degrees. An
operating point that lies within the Alpha Plane restraining
region is equivalent to a point below the slope line in Fig. 5 or
Fig. 6.
Im(k)

Operating
Region

gl

Restraining
Region

An

Re(k)

Ra

diu

Fig. 8.

The 87 element operates when the current ratio leaves the

restraining region and IOP exceeds a minimum pickup value. IL
and IR may represent phase currents, negative-sequence
currents, or zero-sequence currents. Fig. 9 shows a simplified
A-phase 87 element logic diagram; other phase and sequence
elements are similar.
E. Generalized Alpha Plane Differential Characteristic
In modern generalized Alpha Plane relays, IL and IR are
composite signals, which are functions of IOP and IRT. IOP and
IRT are adjustable in order to further secure the 87L element
for in-line transformer applications, line charging current
compensation, and more. Additionally, the generalized Alpha
Plane relays employ an external fault detector, described
previously, which expands the restraining region and security.
F. Multiple CT Input Considerations
Why are paralleled CTs less secure as differential relay
inputs? For external faults, the 87 relay is not able to measure
the true local restraint current (the sum of the Breaker 1 and
Breaker 2 current magnitudes). Instead, the local restraint
current is only the difference or error between these two
signals. Fig. 10 shows a typical external CT summation
connection.
Recall from the slope-based differential characteristic
shown in Fig. 5 that higher restraint magnitude equates to
more security and that lower restraint magnitude means the
relay is more sensitive. For external faults, we want the relay
to be as secure as possible. However, the CT connection
shown in Fig. 10 limits the ability of the relay to be secure by
hiding restraint current. Consider faults where the remote
current contribution, IR, is zero; the local operate or difference
signal is the same as the local restraint signal.

Alpha Plane Differential Characteristic

87LPF
(setting)

IAL

|IAL + IAR|

87LOPA

Alpha Plane
1/8

R87LA
IAR

Settings
87LANG, 87LR

H
1
1

Fig. 9.

Alpha Plane Differential Characteristic Relay Trip Logic

87LA

security is further enhanced with the generalized Alpha Plane

and an external fault detection-driven adaptive characteristic.
For more information on line current differential relays,
refer to [6] and [7].

Line
IR

IL1

IL1 + IR

V. CASE STUDY 1

Fig. 10. Typical External CT Summation Connection When the Number of

CTs Exceeds the Number of Relay Current Inputs

Today, for multiple breaker terminals, modern relays are

available with multiple CT inputs (see Fig. 11). These relays
measure the individual CT signals for metering and breaker
failure functions, as well as for better restraint for the 87L
element.
Line
IR

IL1

IL1 + IR
2

1
1

Fig. 11. Modern Relay With Multiple CT Inputs

Consider faults where the remote current contribution, IR, is

zero; now, any local operate or difference signal is much less
than the sum of the individual CT magnitudes. Because the
true restraint current is known, the relay is more secure. In
addition to allowing more relay inputs, modern 87L relay

A 92 kV utility transmission line tripped in 2013 when an

adjacent line reclosed a second time into a permanent fault.
Fig. 12 shows a simplified one-line diagram of the system.
Line 1 experienced a C-phase-to-ground (CG) fault close to
Substation Bravo. The Line 1 protection correctly interrupted
the fault twice. When BK24 was reclosed into the fault a
second time, the primary relay on Line 2 at Substation Bravo
incorrectly operated, tripping BK21 and BK22. At the time of
the trip, the remote end of Line 2 (BK33) was open.
The Line 2 primary relay is a digital line current
differential relay. This relay only has a single three-phase
current input. Because of this and the breaker-and-a-half bus
configuration, the BK21 and BK22 CTs were paralleled
external to the relay, as shown in Fig. 13. Note that the CTs
are also tapped down from 2000:5 to 800:5. Both CTs are
rated C800, but the CTs are from different manufacturers.
As discussed previously, paralleling CTs can significantly
challenge differential, distance, and directional elements [2].
In this case, both the line current differential and backup
distance elements operated. However, in keeping with the
focus of this paper, the analysis concentrates on the line
current differential operation. Fig. 14 shows the filtered event
data captured by the primary relay and the assertion of the
elements mentioned previously. The three-phase terminal
currents and voltages, as well as relevant digital elements, are
shown.

Substation Alpha
BK11
Substation Bravo

G
BK12

92/230 kV

BK16
Line 1

BK13

CG
Bus A

BK41

Bus B

13.2/92 kV
BK14
BK24

BK25

BK26

BK21

BK22

BK23

BK15

Substation Charlie
BK31
92/161 kV

BK33
Line 2
13.2/92 kV
BK32

Fig. 12. Simplified One-Line Diagram for Case Study 1

BK51

setting of 6.5 amperes. Fig. 16 shows the magnitude of the

filtered differential current.

Secondary
21/67

Primary
87L/21/67
Bus A
BK21
2000:5
800:5

BK22

2000:5
800:5

2000:5
800:5

2000:5
800:5

Line 2

Fig. 13. CTs Paralleled External to the 87 Relay for Case Study 1

Fig. 14. Line 1 Primary Relay Event Data and 87LC and Z1G Assertion

As Fig. 14 shows, the 87LC C-phase element asserted for

this fault. For comparison, Fig. 15 shows the time-aligned
local and remote currents. Note the lack of remote terminal
C-phase current, and recall that the remote end of the line was
open at the time of this operation. The voltages corroborate
the C-phase event, but note that the voltages shown are not
time-aligned with the 87 element currents.

Fig. 16. Filtered Differential Current Magnitude

ICTMag in Fig. 16 is the differential current for C-phase.

This reached 2,793 amperes primary, or 17.45 amperes
secondary, and far exceeded the 87 element pickup setting.
While the relay measured difference current and responded as
designed and set, the operation of Line 2 for a fault on Line 1
is undesired and is a security failure. The current seen is
difference or error current between the local CTs from BK21
and BK22 for the adjacent line fault. The root causes of the
misoperation are paralleled CTs, the derating of the CTs by
tapping them at less than their full winding, and the unequal
performance of the CTs during the external fault.
Fig. 16 shows that the error current is greater than the
pickup for 2.75 cycles. Adding a small time delay to the
87 element adds security. However, the drawback to this
approach is that it also delays operation for internal faults
where speed is important. Furthermore, setting the delay based
on this one event does not ensure that the delay will prevent
reoccurrence for other faults on the system.
Fig. 17 shows the raw or unfiltered oscillography captured
by the 87 relay. Note that the error current is nonsinusoidal
and that its peaks appear 1.375 cycles after the C-phase
voltage drops at the beginning of the fault.

Fig. 15. Primary Relay Filtered Local and Remote Currents

The 87 element used by this relay is of the Alpha Plane

characteristic described in Section IV, Subsection D. A basic
tenant used in relay design is that phase angles should not be
trusted on extremely small signals. Therefore, before the relay
plots the ratio of remote to local currents on the Alpha Plane,
both the local and remote currents must exceed a minimum
threshold. Because the remote end of the line was open, no
remote current was available and the Alpha Plane was not
enabled. As a result, the only requirement to assert the
87 element was differential current greater than the pickup

Fig. 17. Primary Relay Raw or Unfiltered Oscillography

Because the CTs are paralleled external to the relay,

Fig. 17 only shows the difference or error between the
secondary outputs of these two CTs, which is the result of
unequal CT saturation. The delay seen before saturation is
typical of dc saturation, where the ac peak is not sufficient to
cause CT saturation, but the offset waveform results in offset
flux, driving the CT closer to saturation with each passing
cycle.

Unfortunately, the breaker failure relays for BK21 and

BK22 did not have the capability to capture event data from
the CTs. However, there was a relay on the 161 kV side of the
transformer at BK51 that did capture its contribution to the
fault. The unfiltered data from this relay are shown in Fig. 18.

flashed over to ground on the aerial, 69 kV TCC-6 line

between Substations SK and PO-1 (see Fig. 20). The line is
less than one mile long and terminates at the remote end into a
transformer. The 42 MVA delta-wye power transformer serves
a 400-ampere resistance-grounded switchgear bus.
Substation SK

13

32

14

33

15

34

TCC-6

The CT for this relay clearly shows the dc offset in the

C-phase current waveform. This is in contrast with the first
reclose, which was also captured by the same transformer
relay. The unfiltered event data from the first reclose are
shown in Fig. 19. The symmetrical fault current provides an
explanation for why a misoperation did not occur during the
first reclose.

Fig. 19. Unfiltered Event Data From BK51 During the First Reclose

The CTs used for the Substation Bravo Line 2 primary

relay are 2000:5 multiratio CTs that have been tapped down to
800:5. This essentially derates the CTs and causes them to
saturate at lower values of primary current. The CTs are rated
C800 at their full winding ratio. Tapping them at 800:5 results
in an effective C-rating of C320. Essentially, 60 percent of the
CT capability is lost simply by its tap selection. Increasing the
tap on the CTs regains their full capability and improves
security.
An additional security improvement requires replacing the
relay with a newer model that has separate inputs for each
individual CT. By doing so, the relay can measure the actual
current flowing in each CT at the local end and develop better
restraint and security.
VI. CASE STUDY 2
An industrial plant experienced a fault in 2014. An initial
investigation suggested that a string of insulators on B-phase

TCC-8
TCC-7

Fig. 18. Unfiltered Event Data From BK51 During the Second Reclose

TCC-9

Substation PO-1
Substation L

Fig. 20. Simplified One-Line Diagram for Case Study 2

The backup overcurrent relay at Terminal 5-6 protecting

the TCC-6 line confirmed the fault type as B-phase-to-ground
(BG). However, the relay event data indicated that the fault
location was beyond the remote terminal. The fault was
forward and no permission to trip was received from
Substation PO-1. The data in Fig. 21 show the first five cycles
of the BG fault. The relay was tripped by its time-overcurrent
ground element. The relay on the low-side switchgear main
breaker also tripped, further confirming the fault location as
downstream of the line.
At the same time, further misoperations contributed to a
site outage. Two 69 kV underground lines (TCC-8 and
TCC-9, shown in Fig. 20 between Substations SK and L) were
tripped by the line current differential relay for the out-ofsection fault.
Similar to the first case study, these lines use a digital line
current differential relay that only has a single three-phase
current input. Because of this and the breaker-and-a-half bus
configuration, the CTs were paralleled external to the relay.
The CT ratios selected were 300:5 on a C800 1200:5
multiratio CT. The relay uses the Alpha Plane characteristic.
Fig. 22 shows raw or unfiltered data from Terminal 14-15
at Substation SK on the TCC-9 line sampled 16 times per
cycle. The first axis shows all three phase voltages and
confirms a BG fault. The second axis shows the local terminal
phase currents. A large B-phase current spike is visible for a
very short time. The third axis shows the local and remote
B-phase time-aligned 87 currents. Note that the spike in
current is only seen by the local terminal. Because this fault is
external, this local current spike is not due to a power system
source behind the remote terminal. The fault is shown to be
BG for the entire five cycles of relay plus breaker operate
time.

8
40,000

1:IA
1:IB

Current (A)

20,000

1:IC

20,000

40,000

80

10

11

12

13

14
1:VA_kV
1:VB_kV

Voltage (kV)

40

1:VC_kV

40

80

10

11

10

11

12

13

14

12

13

14

1:50N1
1:51N
1:51P
1:67N1
1:67N1T
1:RMB2A
1:PTRX
1:RMB1A
Cycles

Fig. 21. Substation SK Terminal 5-6 Sees a Forward BG Fault

Voltage (kV)

80

1:VB_kV

1:VC_kV

40

Current (A)

80
24.970713
800

25.020713

25.070713

25.120713

25.170713

25.220713

600

1:IA

400

1:IB

200

1:IC

200
24.970713
Current (A)

1:VA_kV

40

25.020713

25.070713

25.120713

25.170713

600

25.220713
1:IBL

400

1:IBX

200
0

200
24.970713

25.020713

25.070713

25.020713

25.070713

25.120713

25.170713

25.220713

25.120713

25.170713

25.220713

1:87L
1:87LB
1:87LOPB
1:R87LB
24.970713

Time (s)

Fig. 22. Raw Data From Terminal 14-15 on the TCC-9 Line During the Fault

400
200
0
25.060713

25.080713
1:IAX
1:IBX
1:ICX

25.040713

25.060713

25.080713

25.040713
25.060713
Time (s)

Current (A)
Current (A)
Current (A)

1,400
1,000
600
200
200

4,000
25.030581

25.040581

1,400

25.050581
1:IB_SUM

1,000
600
200
25.030581

25.040581

25.050581

Time (s)

25.080713

Fig. 25. The Difference or Error Between CTs From Breakers 14 and 15

A separate breaker failure relay for Terminal 14-15

recorded a high-resolution COMTRADE event, which showed
individual CT data sampled 2,000 times per second. In
Fig. 24, the first axis shows the B-phase current from
Breaker 14. The second axis shows the B-phase current from
Breaker 15, which is nearly equal and opposite of Breaker 14.
The magnitude of the current flowing in one breaker and out
of the other, from one bus to another during the fault, was
much larger than the current from the remote terminal across
the line. The two CT currents were mathematically summed
using an event analysis software tool. The spike of difference
or error current in the third axis matches that seen by the
87 relay.

6,000
2,000
2,000
6,000
10,000

200

Fig. 23. Terminal 14-15 on the TCC-9 Line During the Fault

8,000
4,000
0
4,000
8,000

4,000

8,000

Current (A)

1:87LOPB
1:87LB
1:87L
1:R87LB
25.020713

25.040713

1:IAW
1:IBW
1:ICW

25.045581 25.065581 25.085581 25.105581 25.125581

1:IAX
1:IBX
1:ICX
25.045581 25.065581 25.085581 25.105581 25.125581
1:IB_SUM

25.045581 25.065581 25.085581 25.105581 25.125581

Time (s)

Fig. 24. Raw Individual CT 14-15 Currents From Breaker Failure Relay

A different scenario played out on the TCC-8 line. Fig. 26

shows the event data from the line current differential relay at
Terminal 32-33 at Substation SK on the TCC-8 line. The first
axis shows the line phase currents. The second axis shows the
terminal voltages.
1:IA
1:IB
1:IC

1,000

Current (A)

200
25.020713
80
20
40
100
25.020713

1:IBW
1:IBX_NEG

8,000

Current (A)

1:IAL
1:IBL
1:ICL

600

Fig. 25 shows the same data from the breaker failure relay.
However, to better compare the output from the two CTs, one
CT polarity has been mathematically reversed. The two
current outputs are plotted together on the first axis. The
difference or error between the two CTs can now be seen
more easily. The CT outputs differ for only 1/4 cycle. The
second axis is the summation or difference current. These
currents are symmetrical, indicating that the CT error is due to
ac saturation.

0
1,000
2,000
25.091352 25.141352 25.191352 25.241352 25.291352
80

Voltage (kV)

Current (A)

Current (A)

Fig. 23 shows the beginning of the BG fault. These are raw

or unfiltered data. The first axis shows the local 87 phase
currents. The second axis shows the remote 87 phase currents.
The digital element 1:R87LB is the Alpha Plane restraint
dropping out. Element 1:87LOPB shows when the difference
current magnitude exceeds pickup. Elements 1:87LB and
1:87L indicate that the 87 element trips after a 1/8-cycle
security delay. The time between the raw or unfiltered current
spike and the element assertion is due to a filtering delay.

40

1:VA_kV
1:VB_kV
1:VC_kV

0
40
80
25.091352 25.141352 25.191352 25.241352 25.291352
Time (s)

Fig. 26. Filtered Difference or Error Current and Voltages on the TCC-8
Line

First, observe that the fault data are about 11 cycles long.
The first six cycles are the BG fault. Then, the fault evolves
into an A-phase-to-B-phase-to-ground (ABG) fault. This
change was not seen in the previous data because the TCC-9
line tripped immediately.

10

6,000
2,000
2,000
6,000
6,000

1:IAW
1:IBW
1:ICW
25.132706

25.182706

25.232706

1:IAX
1:IBX
1:ICX

2,000
2,000
6,000
5,000
3,000
1,000
1,000

25.282706

25.132706

25.132706

25.182706

25.182706

25.232706

25.232706

As with the first case study, the difference or error current

is only present for a short time. Adding a small time delay to
the 87 element adds security. Fig. 29 shows the result of
replaying the Terminal 14-15 raw event data into a similar
relay with externally paralleled CTs that now includes a onecycle delay on the 87 element. With this delay, the relay
remains secure.
However, the drawback to this approach is that it also
delays operation for internal faults where speed is important.
Furthermore, setting the delay based on this one event does
not ensure that the delay will prevent reoccurrence for other
faults on the system.
The CTs used for the Substation SK relays are 1200:5
multiratio CTs that have been tapped down to 300:5. This
essentially derates the CTs and causes them to saturate at
lower values of primary current. The CTs are rated C800 at
their full winding ratio. Tapping them at 300:5 results in an
effective C-rating of C200. Essentially, 75 percent of the CT
capability is lost simply by its tap selection. Increasing the tap
on the CTs regains their full capability and improves security.
This is the solution that was implemented at the industrial
plant.
1,000

Current (A)

Current (A)

Current (A)

Current (A)

Second, unlike the 87 relay on the TCC-9 line that

measured difference current almost immediately at the onset
of the fault, the relay on the TCC-8 line measures difference
current at the transition between fault types. Recall that
multiphase faults are more likely to have dc offset in the fault
current on at least one phase. In fact, note that the difference
current seen in the TCC-8 line data is actually on A-phase,
rather than B-phase.
A separate breaker failure relay for Breakers 32 and 33
recorded a high-resolution COMTRADE event, which showed
individual CT data. In Fig. 27, the first axis shows the three
phase currents from Breaker 32. The second axis shows the
three phase currents from Breaker 33. The third axis shows the
difference or error between the two CTs. Note that the error
current is on A-phase, that the error occurs when the fault
evolves from BG to ABG, and that both CT A-phase signals
are distorted.

25.282706
1:IA_SUM
1:IB_SUM

200

37.350708

37.390708

37.350708

37.390708

1:R87LB
1:SV1
1:SV1T
1:TRIP
37.310708

1:IAW
1:IAXNEG

6,000
2,000

Time (s)

Fig. 29. Positive Effect of a Short Time Delay

2,000
25.192706

25.196706

25.200706

25.204706
1:IA_SUM

Current (A)

5,000

Fig. 30 shows the output of the IEEE Power System

Relaying Committee (PSRC) CT Saturation Theory and
Calculator [8].

3,000
1,000
25.192706

25.196706

25.200706

25.204706

Time (s)

Fig. 28. The Difference or Error Between CTs From Breakers 32 and 33

The two current outputs are plotted together on the first

axis. The difference or error between the two CTs can now be
seen more easily. The CT outputs differ for 6 milliseconds in
the raw or unfiltered event data. The second axis is the
summation or difference current. These currents are
asymmetrical, indicating that the CT error is due to dc
saturation.

150
0

150
0.017

Current (A)

Current (A)
Current (A)

37.310708

1:87LOPB

Fig. 28 shows the same data from the breaker failure relay.
However, to better compare the output from the two CTs, one
CT polarity has been mathematically reversed.

1,000

200

1:87LB

Fig. 27. Raw Individual Breaker 32 and 33 Currents From Breaker Failure
Relay

6,000

600

25.282706

Time (s)

1:IBL
1:IBX

0.017

0.050

0.083

0.117

0.150

0.017

0.050

0.083

0.117

0.150

30
0
30
0.017

Time (s)

Fig. 30. CT Performance at 300:5 (Top) and 1200:5 (Bottom) Taps

11

Im

addition to measuring the individual breaker CTs, this modern

digital relay uses the generalized Alpha Plane characteristic
and an external fault detector for added security.
Fig. 32 shows the individual CT 14-15 currents measured
by the modern 87 relay. These data simply match the data
from Fig. 24 that were used as the source information for the
test. Fig. 33 shows the difference current spike seen by the
original differential relay that used externally paralleled CTs
(first axis) and the difference current spike seen by the modern
relay that combines these signals mathematically (second
axis). Regardless of physical or mathematical summation, the
difference current that is seen is the same.
Current (A)

2,000
2,000
6,000
10,000

6.0

8.0

37.971081

38.071081

Fig. 32. Individual CT 14-15 Currents Measured by Modern 87 Relay

Current (A)

Re
4.0

37.871081

Time (s)

2:IA
2:IB
2:IC

600
400
200
0
200

2.0

1:IAW
1:IAX
1:IBW
1:IBX
1:ICW
1:ICX

6,000

Current (A)

The CT saturation tool allows us to visualize CT

performance at different taps, with varying levels of
remanence flux, changing burdens, and more. Fig. 30 is shown
with no remanence and maximum dc offset. The first axis
shows the CT output on the 300:5 tap. The second axis shows
the improved performance on the 1200:5 tap.
Unlike the event in the first case study, the TCC-8 and
TCC-9 lines had both line ends closed during the fault.
Therefore, the 87 relays calculated the Alpha Plane
characteristic. An event analysis tool allows us to simulate the
relay performance with expanded Alpha Plane angle settings.
Fig. 31 shows the TCC-9 line data from the perspective of
Substation L. The original Alpha Plane angle setting during
the fault was 195 degrees. In Fig. 31, the angle has been
expanded to its maximum allowed setting of 270 degrees. For
a relay with a slope-based differential characteristic, this is
equivalent to increasing the slope setting. Each point
represents a processing interval, and the relay would have
tripped even if the Alpha Plane restraining region had been
expanded. Analysis of the TCC-8 line data showed similar
results. In addition to not preventing the misoperation,
expanding the restraining region could have the adverse effect
of delaying or preventing tripping for an internal fault with
similar CT saturation.

25.005581

25.045581

25.085581
1:IA_COMBINED
1:IB_COMBINED
1:IC_COMBINED

1,200
800
400
0
400

25.005581

25.045581
Time (s)

25.085581

Fig. 33. Physically and Mathematically Combined Currents Show the Same
Difference or Error

Fig. 31. Effect of Increasing the Alpha Plane Angle Setting

In addition to increasing the CT taps, another solution

requires replacing the relay with a newer model that has
separate inputs for each individual CT. By doing so, the relay
can measure the actual current flowing in each CT at the local
end and develop better restraint and security. To prove this
solution, the Terminal 14-15 COMTRADE data were replayed
into a modern relay that measures separate CT inputs. In

Fig. 34 shows the response of the original relay (trip) and

the modern relay (no trip). The first axis shows the difference
current spike seen by the modern relay with replayed event
data. The second axis shows the difference current seen by the
original relay during the fault. The digital elements in the third
axis show that the original relay trips (2:DD, 2:87L, and
2:TRIP87 assert) and that the modern relay remains secure
and does not trip (1:87L deasserted). This is because the
modern relay, while seeing the same difference signal, uses
the independent CT information to detect an external fault
(1:87EFD and 1:87EFDL assert), shift to more secure settings,
and add restraint to the differential calculation.

12

Current (A)

1,400

1:IB_COMBINED

1,000
600
200
200
800

07.994706

08.044706

08.094706
2:IB

Current (A)

600
400
200
0
200

07.994706

08.044706

08.094706

07.994706

08.044706
Time (s)

08.094706

1:87EFD
1:87EFDL
2:TRIP87
2:DD
1:87L
2:87L

Fig. 34. Modern Relay Does Not Trip for Replayed Event Data

VII. CONCLUSION
It has been a common practice in power system protection
to parallel CTs with transmission relays due to typical bus
configurations and limited current inputs to these relays.
Different relay designs have varying tolerance for and security
during CT errors. While the vast majority of these installations
have been secure and have operated admirably, it has been
shown that this practice can present significant challenges to
the security of line current differential relays when the CTs are
exposed to fault currents that drive them into saturation.
Compounding the challenge for the relay, sometimes CTs are
tapped down and derated even further in these applications.
The two case studies illuminate these challenges and their
risks to security. In both cases, CTs saturated during external
faults on adjacent lines. AC and dc saturation were on display
in the case studies. In both cases, CTs were externally
paralleled and were significantly tapped down from the
maximum ratio.
Several possible solutions to mitigate these issues have
been presented when dealing with in-service applications.
These include adding a short tripping time delay and adjusting
the Alpha Plane angle or slope setting. These two solutions
alone, however, cannot guarantee security for all fault
conditions, and they risk dependability and slow tripping for
internal faults. Any change in the Alpha Plane angle or slope
setting should only be made after thoughtful review and
extensive power system simulations.
Another solution includes using the maximum CT ratio
when paralleling CTs to improve the CT performance. In the
case studies shared in this paper, increasing the CT tap to the
full winding was a recommended solution. Additionally,
adding a short delay (one-cycle maximum) for phase
differential elements on relays with externally paralleled CTs,
along with using the maximum CT ratio, may be an acceptable

compromise between dependability and added security if it is

determined that CT saturation is still possible. The IEEE
PSRC CT Saturation Calculator is an excellent tool to
evaluate CT performance [8].
The final solution, admittedly best considered for new
installations in the future or for particularly troublesome inservice applications, is to install a modern digital 87 relay.
This relay should have an external fault detector or other
adaptive characteristic for increased security and separate
current inputs for each CT to avoid paralleling CTs external to
the relay. While it is true that modern relays allow CT
performance requirements to be relaxed when compared with
previous generations of protection, as the testing in this paper
proves, the authors strongly recommend using the maximum
CT ratio and the best possible CTs even with the modern
relays.
VIII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their sincere appreciation to Mr. Bill
Fleming for the fault current calculation spreadsheet, to
Mr. Glen Swift and the IEEE PSRC for the CT Saturation
Calculator tool, to Mr. Gabriel Benmouyal for reviewing our
text, and to the engineers and companies who shared original
event data and assisted with root cause analysis.
IX. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]

W. A. Ganoe, MacArthur Close-Up. Vantage Press, New York, 1962.

B. Kasztenny and I. Voloh, Application of Distance and Line Current
Differential Relays in Breaker-and-a-Half Configurations, proceedings
of the IEEE Power and Energy Society Transmission and Distribution
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, May 2006.
G. Benmouyal, J. Roberts, and S. E. Zocholl, Selecting CTs to
Optimize Relay Performance, proceedings of the 23rd Annual Western
Protective Relay Conference, Spokane, WA, October 1996.

13
[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

H. J. Altuve, N. Fischer, G. Benmouyal, and D. Finney, Sizing Current

Transformers for Line Protection Applications, proceedings of the
66th Annual Conference for Protective Relay Engineers, College
Station, TX, April 2013.
M. Thompson, R. Folkers, and A. Sinclair, Secure Application of
Transformer Differential Relays for Bus Protection, proceedings of the
58th Annual Conference for Protective Relay Engineers, College
Station, TX, April 2005.
H. Miller, J. Burger, N. Fischer, and B. Kasztenny, Modern Line
Current Differential Protection Solutions, proceedings of the
63rd Annual Conference for Protective Relay Engineers, College
Station, TX, March 2010.
B. Kasztenny, G. Benmouyal, H. J. Altuve, and N. Fischer, Tutorial on
Operating Characteristics of Microprocessor-Based Multiterminal Line
Current Differential Relays, proceedings of the 38th Annual Western
Protective Relay Conference, Spokane, WA, October 2011.
IEEE Power System Relaying Committee, CT Saturation Theory and
Calculator, September 2003. Available: http://www.pes-psrc.org.

X. BIOGRAPHIES
David Costello graduated from Texas A&M University in 1991 with a B.S. in
electrical engineering. He worked as a system protection engineer at Central
Power and Light and Central and Southwest Services in Texas and Oklahoma
and served on the System Protection Task Force for ERCOT. In 1996, David
joined Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. as a field application
engineer and later served as a regional service manager and senior application
engineer. He presently holds the title of technical support director and works
in Fair Oaks Ranch, Texas. David has authored more than 30 technical papers
and 25 application guides. He was honored to receive the 2008 Walter A.
Elmore Best Paper Award from the Georgia Institute of Technology
Protective Relaying Conference and the 2013 Outstanding Engineer Award
from the Central Texas section of the IEEE Power and Energy Society. He is
a senior member of IEEE, a registered professional engineer in Texas, and a
member of the planning committees for the Conference for Protective Relay
Engineers at Texas A&M University.
Jason Young graduated from the University of Waterloo in 2006 with a
BASc in electrical engineering. He joined Schweitzer Engineering
Laboratories, Inc. in 2006 as a field application engineer in Boerne, Texas. He
now serves as a protection application engineer in Smiths Falls, Ontario,
Canada. He is a registered professional engineer in the province of Ontario.
Jonas Traphoner graduated with a B.Eng. in electrical engineering from the
Duale Hochschule Baden-Wrttemberg (DHBW) in 2011 and an MSEE from
the University of Texas at Austin in 2014. During his undergraduate studies,
Jonas worked for the utility company MVV Energie AG. In August 2014,
Jonas joined Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc., where he holds the
position of field application engineer. He is a member of IEEE.

Previously presented at the 2015 Texas A&M

Conference for Protective Relay Engineers.
2015 IEEE All rights reserved.
20150217 TP6688-01